John Edwards picking up college girls

One of my biggest regrets, at least politically speaking, is that I invested as much as I did in the John Edwards campaign. It sounds incredibly naive in retrospect, I know, but I really believed that he was sincerely running because he wanted to stand up for regular Americans, and bring morality and integrity back to the White House. He was a charismatic son of a bitch, and I ate it up. Fortunately for all of us, though, he imploded before he could do too much damage. It’s an embarrassing chapter in my life that I’d like to put behind me, but some folks won’t let me. My friend Eric just forwarded me the following picture, taken a few evenings ago by his cousin, at a bar on the campus of the University of North Carolina. It’s a little dark, but that’s John Edwards, getting the number of a co-ed… I could care less that the guy gets laid. That’s not what makes me feel sick. What bothers me is that this, at least as far as I can tell, is how he spends his time these days, instead of traveling around the country advocating on behalf of the poor and disenfranchised. I could have accepted the lying and the philandering, if, after getting caught, he owned up to what he’d done, and continued the RFK-inspired campaign that he’d begun. If he’d continued to work on the problem of poverty without the White House as an objective, I’d still support him to this day. The reality is that he probably never really cared, though. It’s hard to accept, but it looks now as if the whole thing was a very calculated act of political theater.

62 Comments

Well, to be fair, it is possible that he still cares for the poor by day and he wants to pick up chicks by night…. ;-)

In any event, I share your pain, Mark. I thought Edwards was a viable choice too. Imagine it had been him getting the nomination in 2008 instead of Obama. We’d be singing the McCain song now, that’s for sure.

I don’t consider myself duped for also buying in to Edwards to a large degree. He still had the best message and seemed like the most electable to me. Clearly the media was not doing their job or waiting for some bombshell before they exposed him. That book Game Change makes it pretty clear that plenty of people knew what a morally weak guy Edwards was. His poor wife doesn’t sound like such a great character either based on that book. As far as the picture goes, what’s he got to lose at this point?

I can’t think about Edwards without getting an image of him in my mind, hiding there in the hotel mens room stall, refusing to come out, with reporters from the National Enquirer standing around outside. Such a cowardly little chicken shit.

You and Robert got fooled by John Edwards, but you are always right about everything else! If your site had a wider audience, then maybe your tea-party bashing might mean something. Give it a rest. In 2 weeks your world is changing. Accept it.

The Republicans could have easily taken control of the US Senate this cycle but blew it by running unelectable candidates in some key states. For that we should be grateful. And it is still possible that with a lot of hard work Democrats can minimize the damage in the House of Representatives. You have to keep in mind that the Democrats have a very sizable majority there currently, so whereas Republicans will emphasize the number of districts they win, the truth is that they are mostly just winning back Republican leaning districts which they lost in that slaughter back in 2008. Winning districts that are majority Republican is not really a big coup for them. At best the Republicans will have less than a 20 seat advantage when all is said and done. What we are experiencing is more of a correction than it is any sort of right wing revolution.

Either way, the Republicans won’t have enough of a majority to override an Obama vetoes, nor will they have enough to conquer a Democratic filibuster, so no, there won’t be much repealing of anything going on.

That doesn’t change the incredible vague nature of your comments. First, there is no such thing as “ObamaCare.” If you are referring to the health bill (which is now law), which you yourself admitted that you neither read nor understood, It’s called the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” As far as repealing, well, that’s a little bit more difficult than you seem to understand. The President can veto. You could wait until 2012 (assuming a Democratic loss), but the more benefits from the Health Care Act will come into play, the harder they will be to take away.

Not to mention, whether politicians will really want to expend that much energy, likely fatally ignoring any number of mega issues that may pop-up in the coming months. Remember when the shit hit the fan with the recession, failing banks and a belly up outlook for GM? 9/11? All this may sound great in election time, but in practical terms it could be an entirely different ball game.

Personally, I hope the Republicans take the House. Given some modicum of political power, they might actually do something for a change, rather than just riling up the most extreme members of the electorate for votes.

Yes – “The affordable care act.” Except it is so unaffordable that Obama has already granted exemptions from participation to over 100 corporations. He’s also granted exemptions to Muslims because it is against their faith to purchase insurance. He’s also exempted Washington politicians. And of course patient protection doesn’t include the millions who will still be without any coverage. But we have a lot to thank Democrats for. Why just yesterday Harry Reid claimed credit for saving the whole world. The president can’t veto a bill that will have more than 70% support.

You might want to do some research on the religious exemptions because it includes many of your brethren, not just Muslim people. I bet you would qualify if you or anyone you know are against holding health insurance.

And significantly, there’s still no exemption for Catholic hospitals to prohibit access to abortion. Let’s see how universal the coverage is when the Catholics and Lutherans close all their medical facilities.

I and my brethren will be exempted when the legal challenges of the states make it through the appeals process. The Federal government has no right to require private individuals to purchase medical insurance.

Yes, the government will start forcing doctors to perform abortions. It will happen. Then they’ll come for our guns. Then they’ll make it mandatory that we show gay porn in schools. This is their agenda.

My bounty on EOS’s true identity is still active. If anybody wants to do the research, I’ll pay you the $200. Otherwise it will just have to wait until I have the time in a couple weeks. I bet when I post EOS’s name here he’ll change his tune dramatically. Anybody want to take me up on that one?

Robert,
You and Peter obviously don’t care that your real names will be forever be linked and searchable to remarks that indicate your poor reasoning abilities, hostilities, and lack of writing skills. My comments here are for entertainment purposes and that I choose to do so anonymously is indicative of foresight. I may express a different opinion, but you two are destroying this blog for many.

Peter,
First, you confirm that muslims are exempt and then you conclude that I am uninformed and bigoted. Where’s the logic?

Unlike you, I stand behind whatever I write online. What I say online is no different from anything I say in my everyday life. Some of it may certainly be wrong, ill-reasoned or ineptly expressed, but that’s just life. I’m not afraid. Why are you?

I confirmed that there was a religious exemption not limited to Muslim people, as your initial post suggested. That you limited it to Muslims continues your well-established pattern of bigotry.

I would assume that you would support such an exemption, as it would indicate that the writers of the act were sensitive and respectful of the particular views of religious groups? I don’t really understand your logic at all. Please explain.

I asked a couple of questions, yet have gotten no answers. My only pejorative has been to label you a bigot, a label which you have provided ample evidence for.

Maybe you’d like me to reiterate:

1. The Affordable Health Care Act included a provision for exemptions on religious grounds. This would apply to all religions and faiths, yet in your initial post, you implied that it only applied to Muslims or that it was targeted at Muslims. Aside from your clearly bigoted opinion of Muslims, something you have not hinted at until now, I’d like to know why a religious exemption is so offensive to you? Are you maybe saying that other religious faiths besides Islam should have exemptions but Muslims should not?

2. Why are you so afraid of being held accountable for your political views? Have you ever been denied employment because of your publicly stated opinions? I’m very interested in this. Other tea baggers and rightists don’t seem to fear repercussions, yet you do as evidenced by the multitude of racist signs, emails including names, public comments and writings, yet you do. Why is that? That is very interesting to me.

As for ytown, if you’d ever like a career boost, I’d be happy to show you how to go about obtaining one.

1. I didn’t imply anything like what you ASSUMED. I like most Muslims I have met and have many who are included in my circle of friends. I’m not offended by religious exclusions. Do you think any Christian who doesn’t support abortion will be able to get an exemption from buying insurance in a pool where the combined funds are used to slaughter the innocent?

2. I am accountable for my political and religious views. I stand by everything I have written on this blog. Conservatives are not racist. The most racist individuals in the history of our country were Southern Democrats. It was conservatives who abolished the slave trade. I have never made any signs, emails, or public writings that are racist. To my knowledge, I have never been denied employment because of my political views. You don’t have a shred of evidence that I am a bigot. You are encouraged to supply the reasons why you hold your point of view. Instead of engaging in a debate of ideas, you routinely resort to personal attack: racist, bigot, cockroach,… ad nauseum. One can rightly conclude that since you can’t adequately defend your point of view, you do whatever you can to drive away all those who don’t share it.

The original post was discussing the fact that the affordable care act was not affordable and that many were already being exempted from what was originally promoted as Universal Health Care. I mentioned some of the many exemptions: Over 100 corporations, politicians, muslims, and millions of others.

But why Muslims in particular? Are Muslims less deserving of exemptions than other religious groups? It’s interesting to me that you mention Muslims specifically and not, for example, Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s Witnesses.

What’s the religious reasoning behind not allowing Muslims to own insurance? Does that mean they cannot purchase homes with mortgages, which require insurance? Many religions have ridiculous beliefs and practices, so I don’t mean to single out Muslims when I say this, but that’s ridiculous.

Because I am not familiar with the beliefs of Christian Scientists or Jehovah Witnesses and have no idea why they would be exempt but not Evangelicals. However, I am familiar with Muslim beliefs and know for a fact that it has been determined that they will be exempt.

Why not those who are morally opposed to abortion? Are we less deserving of exemptions than other religious groups? If you are of the opinion that I should be forced to pay for other peoples abortions, does that make you a bigot? What’s the difference?

No, you just being a bigot makes you a bigot, actually. No one said anything about abortion. You can happily backtrack all you like, but your initial intentions were plainly obvious. “Some of my best friends are Muslim” isn’t really helping you either.

Or, maybe, you’re just not intelligent enough to see how using Muslims as an example could be construed, particularly when your birther credentials have been well stated on this blog.

The worst bigots don’t even know they are bigots. Conservatives are not bigots, bigots are just bigots.

I’m sorry, there are two types of people, I just cannot tolerate in this world, one is the set of bigots, the other is the set of people who spread misinformation for political gain (intentionally or not), so that pretty much counts you out on both counts.

Peter, you are going to give me career advice while in graduate school? How reassuring. I guess you would tell me to take out student loans and stay in school where you don’t have to answer to anyone. Also, why is it you love to hurl insults and name-call to those who have differing view points?

Seriously? JE is a corporate scoundrel douche bag… He pillaged insurance companies and corporations and made millions of dollars a year suing people…. He’s worse than the BP CEO. Sounds like u now r facing reality.. Welcome to the real world..nice.

The Justice Department has authorized prosecutors to bring criminal charges against former presidential candidate and Sen. John Edwards, sources with knowledge of the investigation confirm to CNN. An indictment could be averted if prosecutors and lawyers for Edwards reach a plea deal.

A federal grand jury in North Carolina has been investigating payments the former senator’s campaign and supporters made to Rielle Hunter, his mistress, who also worked as a videographer for his campaign.

One Trackback

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mark Maynard, JASPER BELLATISIMA. JASPER BELLATISIMA said: John Edwards picking up college girls: John Edwards picking up college girls. By Mark | October 17, 2010. One of m… http://bit.ly/9X05uJ […]